Media

Studies

Helpdesk

Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.

METRO MUST ACCEPT PRO-MARIJUANA ADS

Metro officials must accept advertising that promotes the legalization of
marijuana now that the Justice Department has opted not to defend the
transit agency's ban on such ads.

Justice officials had until Wednesday to appeal a federal court decision
that struck down a law recently passed in Congress stating that transit
agencies would lose federal funding if they accepted ads advocating the
legalization or medical use of such illicit drugs.

Metro has yet to receive pro-marijuana ads since the Justice Department's
decision, but a spokesman said the agency would not reject such ads unless
they "showcased profanity."

"The transit agency is not in the business of picking and choosing what can
and cannot go up," Metro spokesman Steven Taubenkibel said.

The government "does not have a viable argument to advance in the statute's
defense," acting Solicitor General Paul D. Clement said in a letter to
Senate attorneys last month that explained his decision.

He said the law also could have banned transit agencies from posting ads
with anti-drug messages and other public service announcements.

U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook, Oklahoma Republican, pushed for the law last year
after Metro ran a series of ads by Change the Climate Inc., a Boston group
that promotes the legalization of marijuana.

One ad touting marijuana legalization showed a young couple embracing, with
the caption "Enjoy Better Sex!"

Mr. Istook had no comment Wednesday on the Justice Department's decision, a
spokeswoman said.

D.C. Council member Jim Graham, who serves on the board of directors for
Metro, said he agreed with the Justice Department's decision, though he did
not care for the marijuana ads.

"I think that any decision that favors the First Amendment right to freedom
of expression is a good one," said Mr. Graham, Ward 1 Democrat. "Some of
these ads are hard to swallow, but what we're talking about is freedom of
expression. And sometimes we just have to gulp."

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the federal government last
year when Metro rejected a Change the Climate ad with the headline
"Marijuana Laws Waste Billions of Taxpayer Dollars to Lock Up Non-Violent
Americans."

Metro officials cited the new federal law when rejecting the ad, saying the
cash-strapped agency could not risk losing $170 million in federal subsidies.

Joseph White, executive director for Change the Climate, said the group has
not ruled out another round of pro-marijuana ads for the Metro system.

"I expect that we will be launching a campaign when we decide where that
would be most effective," he said. "It's a little too early to say right now."

"It's very unusual," said Graham Boyd, director of the group's drug law
reform project. "I think it is a surprisingly frank admission that the
First Amendment requires an evenhanded treatment."

Anti-drug advocates were disappointed by the decision not to defend the case.

"It's very distressing news that it appears we're not fighting back on
this," said Joyce Nalepka, president of the District-based Drug-Free Kids.
"Washington, D.C., really needs to make a statement. There must be a way to
stop these ads."